From: Harald.T.Alvestrand@uninett.no
Date: Fri, 03 Nov 1995 10:06:25 +0100
I don't say that these argue against SIL codes, just that we have
to know what we are doing, and make sure we change the standard
in the right place.
Well, I don't know how pertinent it is to know about agendas here. We
could certainly question ISO in this regard also. It seems to me that
SIL's agenda here is quite irrelevant and that it is the end product of
their agenda that is useful. Namely, the language list and identifiers
list itself. If we should make any judgements, it should be along the
lines of comprehensiveness, which nobody can fault SIL for.
I'd like to improve 1766 to make it more comprehensive. You couldn't
help it that 639 is so limited. So I'm really not faulting 1766. It
seems it is important to recognize its limitations based on 639's limits
and move on from there. Given that the SIL list is available and a new
list from ISO is not forthcoming (its been stuck as a CD for over 5
years now with little activity), I think that we should move ahead and
use the SIL list.
If would be pleased to assist in improving 1766 so it can be a single,
comprehensive language tag standard. Something I also want.
Regards,
Glenn